Talk:Christchurch/Archive 4
This is an archive of past discussions about Christchurch. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Draft: Sport in Christchurch - comments please
I have created a new draft article Draft:Sport in Christchurch. There is scope for significant further expansion of the draft, but it would be great to get some feedback about coverage, the structure, and the content of tables etc. The idea is that after further expansion and publication of the draft, the sports-related content in the Christchurch article can be reduced significantly, leaving a "main" template link to the new article. Please comment on the talk page of the draft, or chip in and expand the draft._Marshelec (talk) 02:49, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- The article Sport in Christchurch is now in mainspace, and content about sport in this article has been replaced, with a link added to the new article. The new article could do with further expansion, but I have done my best in the time available. There is a need for new articles for some sports venues - I have left redlinks in to highlight these. Hopefully someone will make a start on those._Marshelec (talk) 23:32, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Mentioning Auckland in first sentence
Currently the first sentence reads
Christchurch (/ˈkraɪstʃɜːrtʃ/ ⓘ; Māori: Ōtautahi) is the largest city in the South Island and the second-largest city by urban area population in New Zealand, after Auckland.
I question if it worthwhile to mention who is in first place. Seeing as the Auckland wiki does not mention who is second. Whilst Wellington does not mention Auckland being the first and only mentions Christchurch within the footnote on boundary totals.
Plus details on order of cities is in the second-largest city link. Unclesi86 (talk) 01:38, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- I agree and I have removed mention of Auckland from the first sentence. Schwede66 02:15, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
City brand logo
Recently the city has gained an official city brand logo. [1]
This is a logo that is agreed on by local stakeholders to represent the city.
And on city pages like Porto, Amsterdam, and Helsinki have their own brandmarks beside the city flags and coat of arms.
What information is needed for this to happen? Unclesi86 (talk) 02:01, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- I realize that since it's everywhere in the city. I'm unsure why Roger 8 Roger removed it with the summary being "original research" when it doesn't really make sense. I have no objections to that logo. Alexeyevitch(talk) 02:21, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- It's promotional, has no independent notability. These sort of things come and go over time, some stick but most fade away never to be seen again. This article is about Christchurch, not the comings and goings of various committees of the CCC. If this logo is still around in ten years time we can reassess its inclusion then. What other articles on WP do is of no relevance here. The infobox is for the absolutely essential facts relevant to the article, and this promotional logo isn't one of them. What is your connection with it? Did you or your company design it? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 03:04, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- I just think if the Amsterdam article has a brandmark... the Christchurch article could also have it. Alexeyevitch(talk) 04:15, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Think of it as the 21st century version of a coat of arms which were also developed as a way to give cities a unique identity https://teara.govt.nz/en/interactive/23508/civic-coats-of-arms
- It is currently across the city as @Alexeyevitch says with work being done to implement it more.
- And yes i am part of the work, but hopefully that doesn't lessen the need for it to be on WP Unclesi86 (talk) 04:14, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, that's true, and I don't see a problem with including the logo. Alexeyevitch(talk) 04:21, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- I also see nothing wrong with including the city logo. We appear to have consensus for inclusion, so let's do it. Schwede66 05:26, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, that's true, and I don't see a problem with including the logo. Alexeyevitch(talk) 04:21, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- I just think if the Amsterdam article has a brandmark... the Christchurch article could also have it. Alexeyevitch(talk) 04:15, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- It's promotional, has no independent notability. These sort of things come and go over time, some stick but most fade away never to be seen again. This article is about Christchurch, not the comings and goings of various committees of the CCC. If this logo is still around in ten years time we can reassess its inclusion then. What other articles on WP do is of no relevance here. The infobox is for the absolutely essential facts relevant to the article, and this promotional logo isn't one of them. What is your connection with it? Did you or your company design it? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 03:04, 2 August 2024 (UTC)